Karnataka High Court
Sri.Raghu @ Raghavendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 2026
Author: V.Srishananda
Bench: V.Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:467
CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100317 OF 2019
(397(CR.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. RAGHU @ RAGHAVENDRA
S/O YAMANAPPA BANAPPAGOL @ MADAR,
AGE: 23 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT,
R/O: PULAGADDI,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
2. SRI. MAHANTESH S/O SIDDAPPA PATIL
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: PULAGADDI,
TQ: GOKAK, DIST: BELAGAVI.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by THROUGH CPI,
CHANDRASHEKAR
LAXMAN MUDALAGI POLICE STATION,
KATTIMANI
Location: High NOW REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/S 397 (1) R/W
401 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND SET ASIDE
THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION & ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED
15/07/2019 PASSED BY THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC.,
MUDALAGI IN C.C.NO.564/2015 AND JUDGMENT DATED 17/10/2019
PASSED BY THE COURT OF XII ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BELAGAVI SITTING AT GOKAK IN CRL. APPEAL NO.225/2019 FOR THE
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:467
CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019
HC-KAR
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3 R/W SECTION 181 WITH
RESPECT TO ACCUSED NO.1 AND SECTION 5 R/W SECTION 180 OF
M.V.ACT WITH RESPECT TO ACCUSED NO.2 AND ACQUIT THE
PETITIONERS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard the learned counsel Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader-Sri.Praveena Y. Devareddiyavara, for respondent-State.
2. The petitioners are accused Nos.1 and 2 in C.C.No.564 of 2015, who faced charges for offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the IPC' for short), read with Section 3, and Sections 180 and 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the IMV Act', for short).
3. On due trial, the accused were convicted for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as under:
ORDER "Exercising the power U/S.248(2) Cr.P.C. the Accused No.1 is convicted of the offences punishable U/S.279.337 of IPC and S.3 r/w S. 181 of Motor Vehicle Act and accused No.2 is convicted of the offence punishable U/S.5 r/w S.180 of Motor Vehicle Act.-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR The accused No.1 is hereby convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable U/S.279 of IPC and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month.
The accused No.1 is hereby convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/S.337 of IPC and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month.
The accused No.1 is hereby convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/- for the offence punishable U/S.3 r/w S.181 of IPC and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month.
The accused No.2 is hereby convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- for the offence punishable U/S.5 r/w S.180 of IPC and in default to pay fine amount, he shall undergo simple imprisonment of one month.
All substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
Exercising the power U/S.357(1) of Cr.P.C., out of the above fine amount i.e. Rs.3000/-(Rupees Three Thousand only), Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) is awarded as compensation to victim (PW.3). Balance Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only) will be defrayed towards the expenses of prosecution.
Office to release the compensation amount to the victim(PW.3) after appeal period is over."-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR
4. Being aggrieved by the same, the accused persons filed an appeal before the District Court in Criminal Appeal No.225 of 2019.
5. The learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the material evidence on record, allowed the appeal and set-aside the conviction of the appellants for the offences under Section 279 and 337 of the IPC and confirmed the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 181 of the IMV Act and sentenced them to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.
6. Being further aggrieved by the same, the accused persons are before this Court in the present revision on the following grounds:
• "It is submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below is against the law, procedure and evidence on record. The judgments passed are mechanical without following due procedure which is one sided and deserves to be set aside.
• It is submitted that the judgment of conviction passed by the Courts below is arbitrary, capricious, malafide and without applying judicial mind. • It is submitted that the Courts below have not at all considered the documentary as well as oral evidence -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR relied by the prosecution and defense evidence in the proper perspective and has rushed to a totally erroneous conclusion while rendering the judgment in question, which has jeopardized the valuable rights of the petitioner.
• It is submitted that the Courts below have not applied their judicious mind at the time of analyzing the evidence on record and mechanically passed the judgment, thereby holding the petitioner guilty of the alleged offenses which have caused miscarriage of justice.
• It is submitted that though Lower Appellate Court has come to a right conclusion that there is no proof regarding rash and negligent riding by the Accused No. 1, however erred in confirming the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 181 of M.V. Act. It is submitted that it is specific defense taken by the Accused No. 1 that as on the date of accident it is the complainant who was riding the alleged motor cycle and Accused No. 1 was pillion rider and the victim himself has sustained injury while riding the bicycle. Further, it is also a defense taken by the Accused No. 1 that his marriage was fixed with a girl from complainant family and as Accused No. 1 refused to marry the said girl, to take revenge against the Accused No. 1 a false case has been lodged against him. To that effect suggestion also made. Admittedly, the Accused No. 1 is the relative of complainant. A totally false case has been filed in order to take revenge against the Accused No. 1 and -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR to extract money. However, the Lower Appellate Court has not at all considered the said aspect of the matter and erred in confirming the judgment of conviction in so far as offence punishable under Section 181 of M.V. Act.
• It is submitted that Lower Appellate Court decides the appeal as if it is the only Accused No. 1 who had preferred appeal against the judgment of conviction passed by the Trial Court. The Lower Appellate Court in its judgment has not at assigned any reasons and findings on the Accused No. 2 and his conviction. In the operative portion of the judgment the Lower Appellate Court passed order only in respect of Accused No. 1 by setting aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 279 & 337 of IPC and confirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence for the offence punishable under Section 181 of M.V. Act. But in so far as Accused No. 2 no order is passed as to whether conviction judgment is set aside or confirmed. Under the circumstances the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Lower Appellate Court is liable to be set aside to that extent • It is submitted that there is enmity between the accused and complainant family and out of that grudge a false complaint is filed. Nose of the independent witnesses were examined by the prosecution. PW-4 who has been planted as eye witness to the incident is the relative of complainant -7- NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR and he partly hostile to the case of the prosecution.
On perusal of the spot panchanama, only cycle can be found and motor cycle was not there in the sketch. The same proves that the motor cycle of the Accused No. 2 was falsely implicated in order to get the compensation from the Accused No. 2 as the victim has filed claim petition seeking compensation on account of injuries sustained in the alleged accident.
• It is submitted there is a delay in lodging the complaint as the alleged incident took place on 15/06/2015 at about 7.00 p.m. wherein complaint was lodged on the next day on 16/06/2015 at 8.15 p.m. The distance between the place of alleged accident and police station is only 15 k.m. and nothing prevented the complainant to lodge complaint immediately after the accident. The delay in lodging the complaint creates serious doubts on the case of the prosecution and only after due discussion and deliberation a false complaint was filed. Under the circumstances the said benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused by acquitting them from the alleged charges. • It is submitted that no independent witnesses have been examined by the prosecution. PW-1 is the panch witness to the spot panchanama. PW-2 to 4 are the relatives of victim and hence they are interested witnesses. PW-4 who alleged to be the eye witness is also the relative of complainant and he has partly hostile to the case of prosecution. PW-5 is the -8- NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR doctor who treated the victim and he has deposed in the cross examination that injury sustained by the victim are simple in nature and that may cause due to fall on hard object. PW-6 is the ASI & PW-7 is the Motor Vehicle Inspector. Under the circumstances the Courts below erred in convicting the petitioner without there being any cogent evidence. • It is submitted that the entire case of the prosecution if perused as it is, it will not and does not goes to show the true state of affairs and the entire prosecution case is based on assumption and presumption and improvements and even then the Courts below convicted the petitioners without looking to the evidence on record which is required to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court.
• It is submitted that the Courts below have not considered the fact that the PW-1 and 2 have not stated the involvement of alleged vehicle number and the PW-2 is clearly admitted that he is interested witness and prosecution not proved the involvement of the vehicle and complainant stated different vehicle number in the complaint. Without considering these and other aspects the Courts below have wrongly convicted the petitioners.
• It is submitted that the panchas witness for the spot panchanama is interested witness and seizer panchas also not supported the case of the prosecution and have not deposed the vehicle number. There is no any documents to show that the petitioners have committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution -9- NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR and as such prosecution totally failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. Such being the case there is no iota of evidence to show that the petitioners have committed any offences as alleged and hence entire approach of the Courts below is against the law and procedure and same is liable to be set aside.
• It is submitted that there are contradictions on record to with respect time of incident and rash or negligent act of the accused which led to the accident. Therefore the ingredients of the offences have been not proved beyond reasonable doubt. • The petitioners may be allowed to urge additional grounds at the time of admission and final hearing. The petitioners has not filed any other petitioner on the same cause of action or for the same relief."
7. Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented that the First Appellate Court erred in committing the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 181 of the IMV Act and sought for admitting of the revision petition for further consideration.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader fairly submits that the State has not filed any appeal acquitting the accused of the offences under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR However, the material on record is sufficient enough to maintain the conviction of the revision petitioner for the offence under Section 181 of the IMV Act and therefore, sought for dismissal of the revision petition.
9. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously.
10. On such perusal of the material on record, the learned Judge in the First Appellate Court, while answering Point No.2 in the Criminal Appeal No.225 of 2019, in paragraph No.13, held as under:
"13. Point No.2:- As already held above from the evidence of PW.3 and 4 appellant riding the motor bike of appellant No.2 and causing accident has been proved. It is the burden upon the appellant to prove that he possessed effective DL to drive the vehicle. No materials are produced by him. Hence the lower court was correct in convicting him for offence punishable U/Sec.181 R/w sec. 3 of MV Act. Therefore I answer this point in affirmative.
In the result I proceed to pass the following ORDER The appeal is allowed in part.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR The Impugned judgment and order in convicting the appellant for offence punishable U/Sec.279, 337 of IPC is set aside.
The impugned judgment and order in convicting the appellant for offence punishable U/Sec.181 of MV Act and sentencing him to fine of Rs.500/- is hereby confirmed.
The fine amount deposited for the offences U/Sec. 279, 337 of IPC Is directed to be refunded."
11. Sri.S.B.Doddagoudar, learned counsel appearing for petitioners, however, wanted to impress upon the Court that he would file the necessary documents before this Court to substantiate the grounds of the revision.
12. In the revision petition, there is no scope for taking additional evidence and a sufficient opportunity was available before the revision petitioner to produce the original driving licence before the trial Magistrate or at least before the First Appellate Court by resorting to Section 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
13. Such an attempt was not made by the petitioners either before the trial Court or before the First Appellate Court.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:467 CRL.RP No. 100317 of 2019 HC-KAR
14. Therefore, having regard to the scope of the revision petition, this Court does not find any good grounds to admit the revision petition for further consideration.
15. Accordingly, the following order:
ORDER The revision petition is meritless and hereby dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Sd/-
(V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-Ct-cmu LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 21